How Christians could be jailed in the name of human rights

By Joel Edwards

12:00AM BST 17 Oct 2000

FOR the first time in my life, I'm hearing Christians in Britain talking about going to prison for their faith. This is not the wacky weirdoes-for-God brigade. These are perfectly sane individuals, many with significant responsibilities for large mainstream churches and other long-established Christian organisations.

Their fears emerge from the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been formally incorporated into British law. More specifically, they are nervous about the final wording of the European Council's Employment Directive 565, which is due to be finalised today.

As this proposal stands, religious groups will lose their current ability to decline to employ people who do not share their beliefs. This means that a Church might be taken to court (and would probably lose) if it failed to employ a militant atheist who applied for a secretarial position in the church office. A synagogue would be in the same position if it refused to give a job to an openly gay youth worker. The secular equivalent would be if Millbank were put in a position where it had to employ a Conservative Party activist in the run-up to the next election.

The only protection is where "it is essential for the post to be filled" by a member of the faith community. The entire area is fraught with uncomfortable ambiguity that will be resolved only in the courts - and the costly litigation could ruin smaller religious organisations.

As a Christian, I am particularly keen to see the law uphold justice for everybody, irrespective of age, culture, sex - or sexual orientation for that matter. When Peter Tatchell attacked President Robert Mugabe last year, accusing him of homophobia, Christian friends from Zimbabwe wrote asking me to protest against this unreasonable assault on their president. While I disagreed with OutRage's world view and methodology, I refused point blank, given Mr Mugabe's appalling human rights record.

But I am also anxious to avoid what I term "the intolerance of tolerance". What I mean is this: will the law in future be able to protect a Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Sikh who thinks that his or her human rights include the right not to employ someone whose way of life makes a nonsense of all they believe? Or will the new tolerance prove to be intolerant to faith?

This is not scaremongering. In 1997, the Church of Scotland's Board of Social Responsibility found itself in the spotlight. The board, which employs only Christians, leased two houses from Govanhill Housing Association for its work with people with learning disabilities. Govanhill objected to the Church's employment policy and suggested it went elsewhere for accommodation.

Last February, some Brighton Christians with a vibrant community programme were almost boycotted by the local council. It accused them of homophobic behaviour because they refused to let their property out to a gay group. This was because they believed this group's moral values were incompatible with their own.

But faith communities do not see the legislation in terms of faith versus the gay lobby. I am not in favour of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, only on the grounds of behaviour - and this would also apply to heterosexuals. The issue is far wider. In an increasingly secularised culture, the real problem is the undermining of religious values in the name of tolerance and rights.

This is most ironic given the way that over the past 12 months politicians have paid more attention to faith groups than ever before. For the past three years, the Conservative Party has been "listening to churches". Tony Blair's foreword to Graham Dale's book God's Politicians left us with the firm impression that, in his view, socialism shares many values with Christianity. The cynic may accuse the politicians of simply trying to cash in on the faith vote, but politicians are starting to appreciate the worth of faith communities - based, as they are, on inherent moral values.

What could the directive mean in the long run? Even if the worst fears come true, there would be no threat to religious worship - but numerous institutions committed to the care and education of our children would suffer. The many religious groups involved with the poor, the homeless and single parent households would be undermined by the legislation. Their work will be far less effective. The state would therefore have to play a bigger role in the care of the disadvantaged, just at the time when much evidence shows that the faith-based voluntary sector is much better at delivering quality social care at every level. The taxpayer should note that this is far more cost-effective, too.

This is why we must find a way forward that promotes human rights, but which leaves religious liberties intact. If the law cannot protect the vocation of these communities, it will definitely have proved itself to be an ass. Worse still, we will have made the notion of tolerance a greater religion than faith itself. Religious groups are unlikely to resort to blockades, but their sentiments on this matter are so strong that faith groups may well unite to defend their own human rights in a way that transcends traditional denominational or even faith divides. That would be an interesting prospect in the lead-up to a general election.

Leaders of faith groups are nervous. But our Government should also be uneasy, for the moral fibre that underpins how the law works for everyone is itself on trial now. There are signs that the employment minister, Tessa Jowell, is making genuine efforts to relay these concerns to the European Council of Ministers. The principle of subsidiarity may yet ensure the religious freedom of faith communities in Britain. Religious leaders of all persuasions certainly hope so.